-
Theory is knowledge, and can only benefit any thing we do!...L..
-
09-20-2014 02:43 AM
-
I'll have to disagree. Most fields have a tradition or a set of historical guidelines that set the path for future reference. What really happens is most practitioners who innovate, do so moving away from these guidelines in a way that is far enough but still moves parallel. Since we're talking about music, take Mozart for example. He was writing music at a very young age as we all know. Mozart is well known for really messing with the sonata form, which was something that was set in stone by the history. He wouldn't have been able to do these weird sonata forms he was doing if he hadn't learned how a basic and traditional sonata form is constructed.
Originally Posted by newsense
In our music, we consider the big innovators to be Charlie Parker and John Coltrane. Now, I've studied these guys music well enough to get a grasp of how they played, and you can tell there is a system. From word of
mouth, I know there wasn't such thing as chord scale theory back in the 40s, when Bird was around. I know their concept of playing revolved around structuring notes in thirds (arpeggios) and using the ear to hear where notes want to go and how to make certain ones stand out (chromatic passing tones and enclosures). Coltrane went into symmetrical harmony, we all know he started using (note, did not come up with) symmetrical divisions of the octaves for tonal centers, among other things. Other musicians also innovated in certain ways, such as Miles Davis and Wayne Shorter, Miles brought modal music to the forefront (again, did not come up with), and Wayne started using uncommon harmony (don't like calling it non-functional, because his changes are pretty functional in many ways).
Now, I althoufg I've studied their music, I haven't looked much into their lives, except for Miles since I read his biography. One thing is for sure, these guys all knew theory and applied it in every sense of the word. All these guys were also deep into classical stuff (most harmonic stuff came from them checking this
music out, like Coltrane and Wayne's stuff).
Today it gets more complicated. Personally, I think we have an innovator of this level among us today, Steve Coleman, who has gone way beyond traditional study. He would hate me referring to him as an innovator (as he says, everything occuring in music had existed for centuries). But he's an example (and a reason) of why today more than ever we need to be on our toes to learn the tradition(s). He has studied the music (and the rules) of
many cultures, most notably India and Africa. He has applied these rules (and subsequently broken them) to the American art form, which is what he grew up on. By arriving at what he's ended up doing, he's broken the rules of various cultures he studies and respects, but it all moves parallel to the formal styles.
Other well studied guys around include Steve Lehman, Tyshawn Sorey, Miles Okazaki, and Vijay Iyer.
And even if you simply want to play, I think you need theory to even understand some
of the harmony that goes on in jazz. A lot of it can be pretty deep.
-
You may have read too much into my off the cuff comment, as "it helps not to be bound by the theoretical contexts of the current day" isn't the same as "it helps to have no understanding of theory". I certainly wasn't implying the latter. Even Einstein knew enough physics to know just how far outside conventional thinking were his theories of relativity.
Apart from that, I agree with virtually all you say in your post.
-
Anyone can get lucky... blind squirrel bumps into an acorn.
But to repeat in different context without memorization generally requires understanding.
The context and being aware of what that context is.
Who cares...
-
I do ! Originally Posted by Reg
Do you think its valuable to get multiple concepts going at the same time Reg
for ex in C
the move Bminb5 , E7 , Amin
is both .......... vii III7 vi (in C)
and ........... ii V i (in Amin)
Or .............
'one day I'll fly away' (nice tune)
the verse in D could be thought of as
|D , G min6/D | D |D |
or I can think of it as
|D , D sus4 with a raised 5th| D |D |
-
Hey pingu
I believe it's essential to be aware of multiple concepts at the same time to perform jazz... (not memorized performance)
I'm not sure the tune is great example... but OK
The basic difference between, B-7b5 to E7 to A- with your two references, either Cmaj or A- would generally be what you choose to use or call your tonal reference from which you create relationships.
Which would reflect the rest of the notes beside the chord tones. Where you choose to organize where those notes come from. Would also influence the subs and any other application of adding more harmony or melodic sources beyond again the spelled out chord tones and melody.
Then there are more levels of applications... notes really don't need to vertically always line up neatly. Sometimes this can make analysis more difficult...
So with Cmaj as your reference the analysis or reference would be as you noted... VII-7b5 to III7 to VI-, that's your basic beginning reference from which you could create different relationships and develop. The analysis implies diatonic harmonic motion... the B-7b5 could be though of as from Cmaj.... could be diatonic function sub of G7, or whatever you choose, the point being the reference for creating relationships etc... is with reference to Cma .
And the E7 would be typical maj/min functional harmony with harmonic min. source for dominant V7 chord to set up Amin, whether at momentary tonal target or a modulation to relative min A-.
Use the same organization and application from second analysis using A- as I- You have different options to create relationships... the simple choice being use of typical II V and all the options of creating relationships and development.
Hope this opens your ears and gets you thinking a little...
Reg
-
Originally Posted by larry graves
there seems to be some debate about that.
it's tempting to believe in complete ignorance matched with complete brilliance because it enables one to believe in compete genius.
-
What's the saying, genius= 10% talent and 90% hard work? Wes probably knew more than he made out!.... Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
I never read those bios or articles about Wes not being music theory literate beyond that he couldn't read music.
Think of it this way: If someone couldn't read words but continuously listened to books on tapes,
it is possible that they would be on equal footing or superior in their knowledge of literature to
people who could read.
Music is a listening art form first and a theoretical/descriptive one secondarily.
Theory acts as a support system to our aural intelligence.
It is unlikely that a person exposed only to theory but never heard actual music would be able to play.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that it is possible for musicians with little formal music education
to bridge this gap through a lifetime of listening and playing.
Some things that Wes seemed to have learned well:
He developed a strong ability to interpret melodies and could spontaneously create new ones.
He knew harmony well enough to easily navigate through any of the music that he recorded.
He had an excellent sense of form and theme development.
He had a strong groove and was rhythmically inventive.
His chordal soloing indicated knowledge of big band shout chorus history.
etc.
Many of us here, myself included, can read and know some theory but are still playing
a catch up game with Wes on overall music intelligence.
-
No so! Originally Posted by teok
During the last decade of the 19th Century and the first two decades of the 20th, brass bands playing marches, ragtime and popular music were popular all over the U.S. especially in New Orleans.
Joseph "King" Oliver was a product of these bands as was Louis Armstrong who took up cornet during his repeated stays at The New Orleans Home for Colored Waifs.
Charlie Christian attended Douglas High School in Oklahoma City where he studied under noted music educator Zelia Page Breaux who grounded all her students in the fundamentals of music.
Teddy Wilson studied violin and piano at the Tuskegee Institute.
Wes Montgomery grew up in a musical family as did Charlie Christian.
Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Miles Davis all benefited from formal training.
The myth of musical illiteracy is partly the creation of the musicians themselves to create an air of mystique for themselves and partly the creation of the publicity departments of the record companies.
I would suggest that you read more well-researched biographies and less liner notes before making such statements in print.
And, no, Robert Johnson didn't go down to the crossroad at midnight and sell his soul to the devil in return for the ability to play guitar and sing the blues.
-
Stan Getz. Born in 1921 if recollection serves, Getz studied saxophone and bassoon in formal lessons for six months and reputedly never studied music theory formally. But at sixteen he joined Jack Teagarden's band and soon after Stan Kenton's group. I would suspect that playing with some of the finest jazz musicians of his time, some of their formal learning might just have rubbed off on Getz.
To me it is funny, but I find Getz's solos much harder to anticipate than Coltrane. One of the most gifted natural improvisers in the history of jazz.
-
In addition to his childhood 'studies' with his musical parents, Chet no doubt studied some theory during his two stints in the Army. Additionally, he studied theory and harmony for two years at El Camino College in Los Angeles. Originally Posted by EUrgell
reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Baker
I always understood, maybe incorrectly, that most of the jazz greats had a pretty good grasp of music theory. Just using Chet as an example here.
-
IMO , if you've mastered, really mastered the major scale, harmonized chord progressions and related arpeggios in 5 positions on the guitar, you're 90% there.
Jimmy Raney once said "jazz? You can't even play"
-
We're talking about Jazz right. I think you need to master Maj scales etc... to begin playing jazz.
Like bako said, playing and learning tunes by ear is a method of becoming aware of Jazz common practice, of which becomes theory in it's self. Maybe you don't know, as Monk pointed out... the names and labels, but you have an organized method of playing based on using your ear as source of guidelines, (theory). It obviously works, just maybe not all the time and all situations... and maybe not the first time... and yea it takes a long time.
-
Isn't that the truth. I'm in the middle of remediating myself and wish I would have just buckled down and done this right the first time. Originally Posted by Reg
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Yesterday, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading